DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Comment
Applicants’ attention is drawn to the fact that the instant claims are directed to at least three distinct inventions: I. A battery and a power consuming apparatus comprising the battery, represented by claims 1-14; and II. A method for manufacturing a battery. The restriction requirement is not made at this time; however, it may be imposed later if the claims are amended to introduce additional limitations to each invention, which would require an additional search in each Group of claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on Nov. 16, 2023, Jun. 18, 2024, and Jun. 26, 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, for example, the sign “600” does appear to point to an incorrect position.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “end caps at two ends, …” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “… arranged opposite each other in a first direction”, which causes confusion because it is unclear as to what is being referenced in terms of “opposite each other”. Also, the phrase “arranged opposite each other” is slightly repetitive. Does Applicant intend to claim the following: each row of battery cells is arranged to face one another in the first direction? In Fig. 3, for example, what’s the row direction, in the first direction, or in the third direction?
The term “adjacent” in claims 2, 5 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-3 and 13 recite the limitation "the battery cell". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the end cap" and “the terminal posts”. There are insufficient antecedent base for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN 109962189 A, whose English translation is being employed in this office action for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Liu).
Regarding claim 1, Tian teaches a battery comprising:
a case (“21” + “22”, Figs.), an accommodation space being formed inside the case (space encompassed by “21” and “22”);
at least one row of battery cells (“1”), the at least one row of battery cells being arranged in the accommodation space, and each row of battery cells comprising at least two battery cells arranged opposite each other in a first direction (See the annotated Fig. below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a support member (See “8”, Figs. 4-5; and “10”), the support member extending in the first direction, and two ends of the support member being fixed to the case (fixed to “4” and “7”, see Figs. 4-5; “10” connected to “2”, “4” and “7”, see [0057] and Figs. 11-13 and 16-17).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches the battery according to claim 1, a shell of the battery cell is cylindrical (See the shape of “1”), and two or more rows of the battery cells are provided (See Figs.), wherein in a second direction, a first gap is formed between the shells of two adjacent rows of battery cells, and the support member is arranged in the first gap (See the annotated Fig. above, and [0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein a shell of the battery cell is cylindrical (See the shape of battery cells “1”), a second gap is formed between the shell of the battery cell and a side wall of the case (See, e.g., a gap between “1” and “7” in Fig. 14), and the support member (“10”) is arranged in the second gap (See Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches the battery according to claim 1, and all the limitations as instantly claimed have been addressed in the rejections of claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the support member comprises a support rod (threaded rod, [0055]) and a base (e.g., nut, [0055]) located at an end of the support rod ([0055]), wherein the base is connected to the side wall (“guard plate 7”, [0055]) of the case.
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches the battery according to claim 7, wherein a connection hole is provided in the base (a nut has a hole), and the base is connected to the side wall (“guard plate 7”, [0055]) of the case by means of a connector passing through the connection hole (i.e., threaded rod passing through the hole).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Liu teaches the battery according to claim 1, and further teaches the support member (“screws 8”, [0052]) comprises a support rod (See “8” in Fig. 4) and a base located at an end of the support rod (See left end of “8” in Fig. 4), wherein the base is connected to the side wall of the case (See Fig. 5 and [0052]) and the support rod and the base are of a structure integrally formed (See “8” in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches a power consuming apparatus (e.g., “a train tail safety protection device”, see Abstract) comprising a battery according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches a method for manufacturing a battery, comprising:
providing a case (“21” + “22”, Figs.), an accommodation space being formed inside the case (space encompassed by “21” and “22”);
providing at least one row of battery cells (“1”), the at least one row of battery cells being arranged in the accommodation space, and each row of battery cells comprising at least two battery cells arranged in a first direction (See the annotated Fig. above); and
providing a support member (See “8”, Figs. 4-5; and “10”), the support member extending in the first direction, and two ends of the support member being fixed to the case (fixed to “4” and “7”, see Figs. 4-5; “10” connected to “2”, “4” and “7”, see [0057] and Figs. 11-13 and 16-17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 105280982 A, whose English translation is being employed in this office action for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Yang).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Liu teaches the battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to the claimed separator. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yang discloses a separator (“water jacket 2”, See at least Figs.) is provided arranged between two adjacent rows of battery cells and surrounds and wraps around the battery cells, allowing for sufficient heat exchange so as to reduce the temperature difference between battery modules (See [0031]-[0032] and Figs.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Yang into Liu such that a separator as taught by Yang is arranged between any two adjacent rows of battery cells of Liu in a second direction in order to reduce the temperature difference between rows of battery cells, because the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima facie obvious (See MPEP 2143). As a result, Liu in view of Yang teaches the support members are arranged at intervals on two sides of the separator (with reference to, e.g., Figs. 4-6 and 14). Furthermore, based on [0069] of Liu, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the number of batter cells of a row in various direction including the third direction can be increased and accordingly the number of the support member can be increased. Although Liu in view of Yang shows the support member is arranged between every one battery cell, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily arrive at the claimed arrangement of the support members between every three of the battery cells on one side of the separator since it involves merely ordinary skill of one skilled in the art. Mere rearrangement of parts (in this case, for example, the support members are arranged from an interval of every one battery cell to an interval of every three battery cells), without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (See MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, as applied to claims 1 or 7 above, and further in view of Inamasu et al. (JP 2012094507 A, whose English machine translation is employed in this office action for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Inamasu).
Regarding claims 8, 10 and 12, Liu teaches the battery according to claims 1 and 7, as provided above, but appears silent as to a tube structure of the support rod as well as an insulating layer provided on a surface of the support member. In the same field of endeavor, however, Inamasu discloses a battery module, wherein a support rod (40) with a tube (41) structure is employed to connected to side wall (12) of a case (19) to fix battery cells of the battery module, and the support rod made of metal can be fixed to the side wall (12) by an adhesive ([0046]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Inamasu into Liu such that the support rod of Liu has a metallic tube structure and is fixed to the side wall of the case by adhesive generally known to be insulative, because the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima facie obvious (See MPEP 2143). As a result, all the claimed limitations in claims 8, 10 and 12 are taught by Liu in view of Inamasu. Furthermore, Liu teaches the support member has a circular shape (See “8” in, e.g., Figs. 4 and 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu, as evidenced by Wood et al. (US 20090011326 A1, hereafter referred to as Wood).
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches the battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to the end cap comprising a terminal post as instantly claimed. Notwithstanding this, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the battery cells of Liu have the claimed elements because they constitute basic structure of a cylindrical battery cell. For example, Wood teaches a battery module comprising battery cells, wherein one battery cell (40) comprises end caps at two ends (50 and 44), wherein the end cap comprises a terminal post (54), and the terminal posts of the end caps of adjacent battery cells are connected in series (See, e.g., Fig. 3B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated teachings of Wood into Liu such that the battery cells of Liu have end caps at two ends of each battery cell and the end caps have terminal posts in order to connect adjacent battery cells in series. The use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima facie obvious (See MPEP § 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights